surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
The problem is consumers haven't spoken with their wallets and until that happens expect more of this BS
I'm guessing sales of these $10 passes won't be flooding in right at the release date, so how will this be "bringing more digital experiences quicker from day one?" And even if they do, what exactly are these new experiences and content?
Seems disingenuous...
Seems disingenuous...
More like "EA defends online ass pain"
am I right? I love the industry. They seem to think its okay to fuck their customer base by saying things like "Online Pass is a way of bringing more digital experiences quicker from day one, getting people new content."
Bastards. How about you actually add some new content and charge for it rather than milk used sales for more money?
am I right? I love the industry. They seem to think its okay to fuck their customer base by saying things like "Online Pass is a way of bringing more digital experiences quicker from day one, getting people new content."
Bastards. How about you actually add some new content and charge for it rather than milk used sales for more money?
I really don't get how they use "maintaining servers able to support that volume of people..." as justification for this. If someone sells me a used copy of their game, I'm not adding to the volume of players their servers need to support. I'm replacing one they already support.
Seems silly but I never play online games and have no idea what the costs of running the servers is.
This is so stupid I guess they won't be getting my money I already pay for online with my xbox and now I and expected to pay more just because there looking for a quick buck.No go here .
WOW, 10 dollars, usually places like gamestop only give you a 5 dollar price cut for buying used-so essentially you would pay more for a new release if you buy used and then wanted online play. BS. I get it maybe in some cases w/ specific games, but EA sports games, no I DONT GET IT! EA is notorious for closing down their servers after a year or less, i have a stack of EA games I cannot Play ONLINE@! Thanks EA, but I have some crappy games that doesn't sell nearly as well as EA games and your STILL able to play online. Prey was released practically at launch and you STILL can get online. EA-maybe if you offered something w/ your online and kept it open for years to come would i pay the fee!
If enough people are buying used games to the point where publishers feel the need to punish them, these online passes will only lock out a big portion of the online community, which ruins things for everyone, whether you bought it new or not.
I would love to see this backfire, leaving online servers empty and driving away potential customers
I would love to see this backfire, leaving online servers empty and driving away potential customers
I still don't buy it.
If publishers are complaining about maintaining the servers for the volume of X customers, a portion of those customers selling the game to new players doesn't change said volume because the people who buy it new aren't playing anymore. If they are storing too much data, they just need to wipe data more often if the player is inactive. Problem fucking solved.
But its not really about that, its about publishers not getting a cut of used sales. They really need to stop lying about it.
If publishers are complaining about maintaining the servers for the volume of X customers, a portion of those customers selling the game to new players doesn't change said volume because the people who buy it new aren't playing anymore. If they are storing too much data, they just need to wipe data more often if the player is inactive. Problem fucking solved.
But its not really about that, its about publishers not getting a cut of used sales. They really need to stop lying about it.
They say they have to maintain severs but the original purchaser is no longer using the server so you still have a zero net change in total players who can be on line at a given time.
All I hear is "NOM NOM NOM GIMME UR DOLLARZ!"
All I hear is "NOM NOM NOM GIMME UR DOLLARZ!"
They will get away with it and it is a brilliant move, regardless of the title. They will start doing it for every genre of game and maybe start with that new MoH game they got going. Good for them, just let things between publishers and retailers come to a head, we will get screwed for a while but eventually they will realize that the market is screwing them. Unless of course we are all a bunch of junkies who will pay whatever we can for what we think are top titles...
Why is it that every article with a topic just set up to be bitched and moaned about has Jim Sterling's name on it?
Ok, so here's what I don't get. They're only charging those who buy a game used for the online pass, right? Yet they're claiming that these extra charges are used to support their servers for the volume of people. However when you buy a game used, they're already getting the money for that game initially. The volume of players doesn't technically grow when a player buys a used game.
Here's the math.
Buy a game new = Add one player.
Trade a game in. = Minus one player.
Buy a game used = Add one player.
1 - 1 + 1 = 1
So they don't have to support any ADDITIONAL players after getting that initial $60 up front.
Here's the math.
Buy a game new = Add one player.
Trade a game in. = Minus one player.
Buy a game used = Add one player.
1 - 1 + 1 = 1
So they don't have to support any ADDITIONAL players after getting that initial $60 up front.
@Akusei: You're correct of course. There can't possibly be more people using the servers at any given point than there are new sales for the game. Even rentals must be purchased by the company renting them out. The logic behind the online pass system is flawed that way. The price of 'server maintenance' or whatever they want to call it, is built into the price of the new sale for the life of that disc. I hope one of the editors can slap EA or THQ or whichever company they next interview about this with this fact and see how they respond.
Basically if NONE of the people who bought the game initially traded the game in, they'd still have to do that same support without any additional revenue. So how does the extra $10 factor in when someone buys a new game, if the player count doesn't change?
@Akusei
I didn't see your initial post before my post. But we're definitely on the same page. Instead of them making excuses and trying to justify their decision with bullshit they should call a spade a spade and just admit that it's about trying to dissuade the gamer from buying a used game rather than new because they don't make money off used game sales.
And that's the bottom line...
I didn't see your initial post before my post. But we're definitely on the same page. Instead of them making excuses and trying to justify their decision with bullshit they should call a spade a spade and just admit that it's about trying to dissuade the gamer from buying a used game rather than new because they don't make money off used game sales.
And that's the bottom line...
"Online Pass is a way of bringing more digital experiences quicker from day one, getting people new content." - BULLSHIT. EA, as well as other developers, sold the game once. Now their greed makes them believe they are missing out on more $ so they try to justify that with a double-dip on the same game. It is bad enough playing online with immature jerks on Xbox Live without having to pay an additional fee for a single game. If this is the future of gaming I will play all the great games of the past offline. FUCK EA!
... the problem is that it can also penalize honest users who are fans of the console. We have two PS3 units in the house and only one copy of Battlefield:Bad Company. If played online, only one person would play it at a time, however my husband tried it out first and used the code for the map pack. He didn't like the online play and I tried it out - but unfortunately without the map pack I kept getting dumped from games whenever those maps came up (making the game unplayable with friends). I had the option to play under my husband's ID - or basically not play at all.
I went with the not bothering option.
... they need a way to differentiate a "used" game from a game used in the same household by several people on the same PS3, or even on several PS3's in the same household.
I went with the not bothering option.
... they need a way to differentiate a "used" game from a game used in the same household by several people on the same PS3, or even on several PS3's in the same household.
using this pass for games that have shit online mp to begin with is a step in the wrong direction.
they want us to pay to play for online i used games, they need to give us dedicated servers and lagless games. mag has 256 players and no lag whatsoever, skate3 has 6 or 8 player online mp and unplayable lag after the 3 player joins.
want me to pay? give me a better experience instaed of the usual untested unpatched garbage with 4 add-on packs.
they want us to pay to play for online i used games, they need to give us dedicated servers and lagless games. mag has 256 players and no lag whatsoever, skate3 has 6 or 8 player online mp and unplayable lag after the 3 player joins.
want me to pay? give me a better experience instaed of the usual untested unpatched garbage with 4 add-on packs.
I keep reading about this vote with your wallet crap. That only works when you're buying a brand new game.
You're not doing anything for developers with your purchases. If anything, they're just getting all of you involved in their chain of production. Now whenever you pay that ten dollars, you are directly affecting their future games.
That is what, comparing it to zero? If all else fails, learn to look for bargains, Steam sales or that other thing. Second hand sales help as much with developers as piracy does.
Don't cry for the retailers either. They can sell you anything that has any relation to gaming. Like that vibrator thing.
You're not doing anything for developers with your purchases. If anything, they're just getting all of you involved in their chain of production. Now whenever you pay that ten dollars, you are directly affecting their future games.
That is what, comparing it to zero? If all else fails, learn to look for bargains, Steam sales or that other thing. Second hand sales help as much with developers as piracy does.
Don't cry for the retailers either. They can sell you anything that has any relation to gaming. Like that vibrator thing.
@Elsa
It's the same thing that PC users have had to put up with the past few years. Take games in Steam or Battle.net, even if you have multiple PCs, you can only play online one at a time.
It's the same thing that PC users have had to put up with the past few years. Take games in Steam or Battle.net, even if you have multiple PCs, you can only play online one at a time.
I'm actually okay with this idea.
Provided, of course, it doesn't work out more expensive than buying the game new. Still, it's a good, optional way to get some money from used sales.
Though, I don't buy used games.
Provided, of course, it doesn't work out more expensive than buying the game new. Still, it's a good, optional way to get some money from used sales.
Though, I don't buy used games.
This is what DLC is for. If they release better day one DLC they can get their 10 fucking dollars, hell put adds in the game for DLC makes more sense. Used game sales put the games in the hands of people who didnt care enough to buy the game full priced, hitting them with an extra fee will just make them go back to not buying your game. Intriguing them with dlc will get them money. OR give people who buy it new extra content that people who buy it used dont get.
This is just a big money scam. As it's already been said... The company has made all the money they're entitled to with the initial sale of the new game. If they want any more than that they can put out their over priced add ons. EA really needs to fix what's already out (Skate3 I'm looking angrily at you) before trying to demand more. I buy primarily NEW games yet I feel like I'm being penalized anyway. This is gonna work out to be a bad deal for the consumer no matter how they play it.
@ George Eric Oliver - Brilliant, good post sir.
This policy is especially dumb when applied to the people who buy used sports games - they don't give a shit about online play. They'll hit the menu option, and say "What? I have to pay? That's dumb." and then go back to single player without a second thought.
This policy is especially dumb when applied to the people who buy used sports games - they don't give a shit about online play. They'll hit the menu option, and say "What? I have to pay? That's dumb." and then go back to single player without a second thought.
@ImperialShield:
You're entire argument is that no new games are entering the market with used game sales and that the same game is out there, giving a net of 0.
This is fundamentally flawed when you realize that someone who is done with a game, and trades it in is officially done with said game, and no longer wants to touch it ever again.
Said game is now being sold to a new user, this new user will immediately put the game in, play it to death and overall add a great amount of use to it's various features.
1 game, 2 major influxes of play time. The user in this plan that is not the norm is the die-hard that will play the game for years after it has come out, but this doesn't affect those users, as they're the one's that do not buy/sell used games.
I'm much more of a fan of the "Online Pass" especially the version THQ is doing with SvR 2011 (Online pass, as well as the first DLC pack free) than the countless amounts of pre-order bonuses. If you pre-order it at Best Buy, Amazon, Gamestop, etc. you each get exclusive shit that they may or may NOT release otherwise. The true tradgedy is content that is lost to the nether.
You're entire argument is that no new games are entering the market with used game sales and that the same game is out there, giving a net of 0.
This is fundamentally flawed when you realize that someone who is done with a game, and trades it in is officially done with said game, and no longer wants to touch it ever again.
Said game is now being sold to a new user, this new user will immediately put the game in, play it to death and overall add a great amount of use to it's various features.
1 game, 2 major influxes of play time. The user in this plan that is not the norm is the die-hard that will play the game for years after it has come out, but this doesn't affect those users, as they're the one's that do not buy/sell used games.
I'm much more of a fan of the "Online Pass" especially the version THQ is doing with SvR 2011 (Online pass, as well as the first DLC pack free) than the countless amounts of pre-order bonuses. If you pre-order it at Best Buy, Amazon, Gamestop, etc. you each get exclusive shit that they may or may NOT release otherwise. The true tradgedy is content that is lost to the nether.
Taking away something that was originally considered a part of the full package of what was called a "game" and then granting it only via an additional fee paid is not "adding content."
It'd be like used book stores removing the last quarter of every book that is sold used, so that customers would have to pay a fee in order to get the rest of the book.
The sad part is, however shady this entire thing sounds, there isn't really any sort of regulatory body that step in and intervene on the consumers' behalf.
It'd be like used book stores removing the last quarter of every book that is sold used, so that customers would have to pay a fee in order to get the rest of the book.
The sad part is, however shady this entire thing sounds, there isn't really any sort of regulatory body that step in and intervene on the consumers' behalf.
@doewnskitty
It'd be like used book stores removing the last quarter of every book that is sold used, so that customers would have to pay a fee in order to get the rest of the book.
Really? You're going to try and make a bad strawman of comparing the game industry to Music/Books/Movies?
The other media doesn't have to support their product past the initial printing. Please, just stop with the ignorance. It's not like you can't play online at all, you're given at least a 7 day pass which covers any rental I've ever seen and MOST users don't even bother to play online past the first week anyway.
It'd be like used book stores removing the last quarter of every book that is sold used, so that customers would have to pay a fee in order to get the rest of the book.
Really? You're going to try and make a bad strawman of comparing the game industry to Music/Books/Movies?
The other media doesn't have to support their product past the initial printing. Please, just stop with the ignorance. It's not like you can't play online at all, you're given at least a 7 day pass which covers any rental I've ever seen and MOST users don't even bother to play online past the first week anyway.
@Nzdjh: Meanwhile Valve just sits back and laughs because they actually provide a good service to their costumers with Steam without gouging people for money and still manage to make a shitload of cash. Most publishers would do well to look at Valve as an example of how to please your costumers with good service. Unfortunately they're too blinded by dollar signs to see it.
I apologize, I JUST now saw this.
You sir, are amazing. You have the solution to it all. Let's instead of trying to find a solution for used game markets, destroy them completely and not let anyone buy our games used! BRILLIANT! Nobel prize winner right in this thread folks! Just buy all your games on a proprietary service (Which I quite enjoy and have several games for) and then that's it, we wouldn't need to deal with used games sales anymore as there is little to no market for buying entire accounts with some good games and a lot of crap for exorbitant prices.
I apologize, I JUST now saw this.
You sir, are amazing. You have the solution to it all. Let's instead of trying to find a solution for used game markets, destroy them completely and not let anyone buy our games used! BRILLIANT! Nobel prize winner right in this thread folks! Just buy all your games on a proprietary service (Which I quite enjoy and have several games for) and then that's it, we wouldn't need to deal with used games sales anymore as there is little to no market for buying entire accounts with some good games and a lot of crap for exorbitant prices.
I already have an ongoing boycott (and I mean actual boycott not an I'm saying I do but I go buy their games anyhow. I'm looking at you modern warfare 2 boycotters) on EA games ... So let them support all the crap that ensures I won't buy or play their games for the foreseeable future. Every time I think about lifting the ban, going out and buying their games ... they pull some jackass stunt. This time they didn't even wait for me to get to the mulling over forgiving them for being tossers stage.
Companies like EA, if compared to Rome, will fall. They create an environment that will push their core audience away, and they will not return. Here's hoping that other publishers start making sports titles that we can purchase and move away from this company's monopoly.
i dont understand the big deal about this.
used game prices will have to drop in order for people to buy them.
ea will just get a cut of it now.
and playing a used game does cost ea money, not only in lost revenue, but in server costs for players who gave ea no money. because even though every time a used game is sold, you lose a person when gaining another person, the seller was going to stop playing anyway. so it isnt really a 1-1+1=1. the seller is a person who no longer plays, and the buyer will play, so the server use increases relative to what it would otherwise be.
i buy plenty of used games, but i dont hate ea for trying to get a cut of used games.
used game prices will have to drop in order for people to buy them.
ea will just get a cut of it now.
and playing a used game does cost ea money, not only in lost revenue, but in server costs for players who gave ea no money. because even though every time a used game is sold, you lose a person when gaining another person, the seller was going to stop playing anyway. so it isnt really a 1-1+1=1. the seller is a person who no longer plays, and the buyer will play, so the server use increases relative to what it would otherwise be.
i buy plenty of used games, but i dont hate ea for trying to get a cut of used games.
@Drowning Rabbit
Hardly a bad strawman at all, but be as dismissive as you wish, in your own ignorance. So it goes.
As I said, long before now, the online multiplayer component of games was considered a de facto part of the "full product" as was sold at the first point of sale. In fact, for the first few years, apart from some major name titles, the online multiplayer was almost treated as an afterthought of sorts, unlike now when it commands its own full development team in parallel to any single player component.
I used the book analogy because when you buy a book used or new, you are getting the same book. You do not have to check the cover twice to find that you might be getting shortchanged, only check your wallet for the cash to pay for it.
And excepting this piss-poor scheme, that's how it was with games. You buy the game new or used, you are essentially getting the same game, with the same basic components as was always known and expected.
And I should point out that it was never so that games had to support their product past the initial printing. That's how it was for years before online gaming finally came around to the console side in a significant enough way, and was only so on the PC side of things.
And it's still true today. Make a game good enough and it can stand on its own without anything extra needing to be added to it.
And this is hardly an arrangement that is intended to "support" the game, but feel free to think that it is so.
I just happen to notice that companies have already demonstrated being able to support a game without removing a feature and then tacking on a fee to enable it.
George Eric Oliver already highlighted it: DLC.
Others have already pointed out why DLC is more apt a choice for "supporting a game past printing" and why this Online Pass is flawed.
It's a cash grab. Spin it all you want, but a rose by any other name is still a rose.
Hardly a bad strawman at all, but be as dismissive as you wish, in your own ignorance. So it goes.
As I said, long before now, the online multiplayer component of games was considered a de facto part of the "full product" as was sold at the first point of sale. In fact, for the first few years, apart from some major name titles, the online multiplayer was almost treated as an afterthought of sorts, unlike now when it commands its own full development team in parallel to any single player component.
I used the book analogy because when you buy a book used or new, you are getting the same book. You do not have to check the cover twice to find that you might be getting shortchanged, only check your wallet for the cash to pay for it.
And excepting this piss-poor scheme, that's how it was with games. You buy the game new or used, you are essentially getting the same game, with the same basic components as was always known and expected.
And I should point out that it was never so that games had to support their product past the initial printing. That's how it was for years before online gaming finally came around to the console side in a significant enough way, and was only so on the PC side of things.
And it's still true today. Make a game good enough and it can stand on its own without anything extra needing to be added to it.
And this is hardly an arrangement that is intended to "support" the game, but feel free to think that it is so.
I just happen to notice that companies have already demonstrated being able to support a game without removing a feature and then tacking on a fee to enable it.
George Eric Oliver already highlighted it: DLC.
Others have already pointed out why DLC is more apt a choice for "supporting a game past printing" and why this Online Pass is flawed.
It's a cash grab. Spin it all you want, but a rose by any other name is still a rose.
@doewnskitty
First, let me talk about DLC. DLC isn't trying to get a USED customer's money, it's trying to keep the game in the hands of the initial purchaser and make them put their game BACK INTO their system. They want the game to be played more by the guy who bought it, beat it in a week, and wants more later.
Getting DLC money from a used sale isn't anything different from getting it from someone who originally owned the game, but it isn't why it's made.
You can expect game companies to support games for years after it's release with server infrastructure all you wish, but in your world, the gaming industry is still the same size it was when the dreamcast came out. Since you're oblivious, I'll point it out to you. The gaming industry is still growing and online gaming is becoming more and more of a mainstay as the years go on. Single player games like Uncharted, and Bioshock are getting what some call "Tacked on" multiplayer modes JUST for the feature list. If you are really expecting the industry not to change because of this, you're wearing your sunglasses at midnight, you just can't see shit.
Personally I'm fine with game companies wanting to still gain some revenue from a used sale, they're providing a service, without compensation. You can't buy a MMO account off another user and stop paying the subscription fee, then expect to keep playing. You're getting a service, it should be a service you're compensating for.
If there is any atrocity in the used video game market today, it's that buying a brand new game will cost you $60 day one, or you can buy the used version for $55.
First, let me talk about DLC. DLC isn't trying to get a USED customer's money, it's trying to keep the game in the hands of the initial purchaser and make them put their game BACK INTO their system. They want the game to be played more by the guy who bought it, beat it in a week, and wants more later.
Getting DLC money from a used sale isn't anything different from getting it from someone who originally owned the game, but it isn't why it's made.
You can expect game companies to support games for years after it's release with server infrastructure all you wish, but in your world, the gaming industry is still the same size it was when the dreamcast came out. Since you're oblivious, I'll point it out to you. The gaming industry is still growing and online gaming is becoming more and more of a mainstay as the years go on. Single player games like Uncharted, and Bioshock are getting what some call "Tacked on" multiplayer modes JUST for the feature list. If you are really expecting the industry not to change because of this, you're wearing your sunglasses at midnight, you just can't see shit.
Personally I'm fine with game companies wanting to still gain some revenue from a used sale, they're providing a service, without compensation. You can't buy a MMO account off another user and stop paying the subscription fee, then expect to keep playing. You're getting a service, it should be a service you're compensating for.
If there is any atrocity in the used video game market today, it's that buying a brand new game will cost you $60 day one, or you can buy the used version for $55.
EA can do whatever they want. Consumers can do whatever they want. And so the market works. If you want to go extreme, buying used games is a form of piracy. Any sale EA would have made from someone wanting their product, is lost when that person, instead, obtains it from another source.
@drowning rabbit: My argument is this. If I buy a new game, for instance Madden 11 and play it for 5 years on a regular basis how is that different from buying Madden 11, selling it after 1 year and someone else playing it regularly for years? I paid for the server maintenance with my original new purchase of the game. So whether I'm playing it for years, or someone else, it's still no gain or loss for EA. The 'fee' for playing online has been paid for the life of the disc.
There are other ways, many other ways, to return profit to developers and publishers for used games and I'm all for them getting it. In my opinion though the argument that they're losing money maintaining servers and online features just doesn't hold water. If that was the case, then they should be able to sell a version of the game that only allows play on a single console <so single player or local multiplayer> at a discounted price for those who have no desire to play online. Will they do that? No, of course not because that means less profit for them on a per disc basis.
Regardless, no matter how you look at it, the math for used games is pretty simple. For the game to be available used, it must have at some point been purchased new and if they aren't charging new buyers a fee after a year or whatever of online play for maintaining their services, then they're granting you that ability for the life of the disc.
There are other ways, many other ways, to return profit to developers and publishers for used games and I'm all for them getting it. In my opinion though the argument that they're losing money maintaining servers and online features just doesn't hold water. If that was the case, then they should be able to sell a version of the game that only allows play on a single console <so single player or local multiplayer> at a discounted price for those who have no desire to play online. Will they do that? No, of course not because that means less profit for them on a per disc basis.
Regardless, no matter how you look at it, the math for used games is pretty simple. For the game to be available used, it must have at some point been purchased new and if they aren't charging new buyers a fee after a year or whatever of online play for maintaining their services, then they're granting you that ability for the life of the disc.
@Imperial Shield
Two points for you specifically.
First, if you were to purchase Madden 11 and play it for 5 year (You're example) you would be at most, a generous 10% of the people purchasing the game. Guess what, there are extremes of every example. What about the guy who buys the game, plays it online for 40 hours in a week, then sells it off to another guy who plays it online for 40 hours in the next week, then sells it off to the next guy who continues, etc.
Secondly, you are putting forth that there are many other wasy to return profits to developers, yet offer no ideas or further that mentality besides saying "There are other ways, many other ways,". If you have a better idea, then why are you keeping it to yourself clutched to your chest? Enlighten us all please.
The guys over at Penny-Arcade broached this subject just last week, Gabe even posted what he considered the best of both sides in the news post, here is one that seems very much applicable:
"I am a gamer and a developer (art and animation side of things). Theres a lot to say here, but it really boils down to this:
What other customers expect a used product be be identical to a new product? Buying a used car comes with increased wear (and thus decreased function). Buying a used book means you are risking page damage or a broken binding. Buying anything used means that you get a cheaper price for decreased function or increased risk. It also requires a little more awareness on the part of the customer to make sure they are aware of what they are getting. In the video game case, if you know the game wont have multi-player used, you can adjust what you are willing to spend on it, the same way you might offer a few hundred dollar less for a used motorcycle due to rust."
You can find the news post here: http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/25/
Two points for you specifically.
First, if you were to purchase Madden 11 and play it for 5 year (You're example) you would be at most, a generous 10% of the people purchasing the game. Guess what, there are extremes of every example. What about the guy who buys the game, plays it online for 40 hours in a week, then sells it off to another guy who plays it online for 40 hours in the next week, then sells it off to the next guy who continues, etc.
Secondly, you are putting forth that there are many other wasy to return profits to developers, yet offer no ideas or further that mentality besides saying "There are other ways, many other ways,". If you have a better idea, then why are you keeping it to yourself clutched to your chest? Enlighten us all please.
The guys over at Penny-Arcade broached this subject just last week, Gabe even posted what he considered the best of both sides in the news post, here is one that seems very much applicable:
"I am a gamer and a developer (art and animation side of things). Theres a lot to say here, but it really boils down to this:
What other customers expect a used product be be identical to a new product? Buying a used car comes with increased wear (and thus decreased function). Buying a used book means you are risking page damage or a broken binding. Buying anything used means that you get a cheaper price for decreased function or increased risk. It also requires a little more awareness on the part of the customer to make sure they are aware of what they are getting. In the video game case, if you know the game wont have multi-player used, you can adjust what you are willing to spend on it, the same way you might offer a few hundred dollar less for a used motorcycle due to rust."
You can find the news post here: http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/25/
The amount of time one plays the game is irrelevant. The fact that publishers are not charging subscription fees for online play as MMOs do implies that when you purchase a game new you've paid for full use of its features. It's not possible for there to ever be more users of a game online than there have been new sales for the same game, so if they're granting you use of the game online for the life of the disc, what's the difference in my playing it online or loaning it to one of my friends to play? It's still just a single system using their server for each new disc sold.
The pennyarcade argument is valid for those objects, but games do not wear or degrade. Purchasing a used game is based solely on age, popularity, supply and demand of the title. Hence why some people pay huge chunks of cash for games many generations old. $200 for Panzer Dragoon Saga for example. The game is more expensive, not less, because of its rarity versus Madden 97 which you can probably get for a buck or less.
My personal ideas for how to solve this? There are a few. Incentivize new game sales by offering additional content that isn't available any other way. I'm not talking about pre-order bonuses, think of a system like Bioware's Cerberus Network freebies for Mass Effect 2. Regardless of where you buy the game, if you buy it new, you get those features. Though personally I'd make it more valuable than a few new weapons. Give me an additional hour or two of exclusive gameplay and that's a good reason to buy new.
Second, they could sell their games for a cheaper retail price and then charge a flat fee per year for online multiplayer. Those who don't wish to participate in online play aren't punished, and those that are are paying for the server maintenance to keep things running smoothly. In this case though, anyone should be able to play the game online whether you have a Live Gold subscription or not.
Third: If they truly wanted to ensure game sales then each copy of the game could be serialized just like PC games are now. You input your code and you're ready to go, but it only works for your gamertag/system however you want to do it. If you want to sell the game to someone else, they have to buy their own serial key for the game. In this case though, the entire game would be linked to the serial key, not just the online play. You might be allowed demo play of some kind without one, otherwise you have to pay the fee to get your own serial #. Rental companies could be given the ability to print keys for each game they're renting when it's shipped or you pick it up, but said key will work only for your gamertag and expire after a month or whatever.
Doing the latter though, would essentially crush used game sales/values altogether though, so not an ideal solution. The only other idea I can come up with is having publishers handle used game sales directly. You send them your game and they send you a coupon for X dollars off another new game from them from any retailer. Then they can decide what amount to charge for their used titles and get some return on them while gamers can still 'trade up' in the case of many sports-game players who buy new each year. If publishers compete directly with retailers like gamestop and offer competitive trade values then they might start to see some return on used sales.
The pennyarcade argument is valid for those objects, but games do not wear or degrade. Purchasing a used game is based solely on age, popularity, supply and demand of the title. Hence why some people pay huge chunks of cash for games many generations old. $200 for Panzer Dragoon Saga for example. The game is more expensive, not less, because of its rarity versus Madden 97 which you can probably get for a buck or less.
My personal ideas for how to solve this? There are a few. Incentivize new game sales by offering additional content that isn't available any other way. I'm not talking about pre-order bonuses, think of a system like Bioware's Cerberus Network freebies for Mass Effect 2. Regardless of where you buy the game, if you buy it new, you get those features. Though personally I'd make it more valuable than a few new weapons. Give me an additional hour or two of exclusive gameplay and that's a good reason to buy new.
Second, they could sell their games for a cheaper retail price and then charge a flat fee per year for online multiplayer. Those who don't wish to participate in online play aren't punished, and those that are are paying for the server maintenance to keep things running smoothly. In this case though, anyone should be able to play the game online whether you have a Live Gold subscription or not.
Third: If they truly wanted to ensure game sales then each copy of the game could be serialized just like PC games are now. You input your code and you're ready to go, but it only works for your gamertag/system however you want to do it. If you want to sell the game to someone else, they have to buy their own serial key for the game. In this case though, the entire game would be linked to the serial key, not just the online play. You might be allowed demo play of some kind without one, otherwise you have to pay the fee to get your own serial #. Rental companies could be given the ability to print keys for each game they're renting when it's shipped or you pick it up, but said key will work only for your gamertag and expire after a month or whatever.
Doing the latter though, would essentially crush used game sales/values altogether though, so not an ideal solution. The only other idea I can come up with is having publishers handle used game sales directly. You send them your game and they send you a coupon for X dollars off another new game from them from any retailer. Then they can decide what amount to charge for their used titles and get some return on them while gamers can still 'trade up' in the case of many sports-game players who buy new each year. If publishers compete directly with retailers like gamestop and offer competitive trade values then they might start to see some return on used sales.
So your stance is that games like Dragon Age: Origins, or to a lesser extent The Saboteur is the best way to do this? DA:O gave a $15 add on DLC free, that many claim should have been part of the game on disc when purchased, and The Saboteur had the infamous "Nude code" attached.
For the question of a game degrading, check eBay again, if you want to buy almost any game on there, there are grades for how well a game was kept, but that is a more 1:1 comparison and not an analogy as it was posted. Buying used comes with pitfalls, and gamers simply haven't been subjected to such things before. Change is not a bad thing, it's part of growth, which again, the industry is doing.
I have to hand it to you though, I did not expect those ideas to be thrown in. You want to get rid of the "Online Pass" which is a one-time fee for people who want to go online for $10 for a used game, or free when bought new, and replace it with a subscription based system for everyone? While also making the single player mode cheaper as well. While I'd agree as a whole with certain games (Modern Warfare 2, i.e. what's singleplayer?), others would not fare so well. For example Uncharted 2, or Bioshock 2. The latter though, would've been a better purchase if you just left multiplayer out completely in my opinion.
I'm not even going to touch your third "Idea" with a ten foot pole. Dig your own grave with that one.
For the question of a game degrading, check eBay again, if you want to buy almost any game on there, there are grades for how well a game was kept, but that is a more 1:1 comparison and not an analogy as it was posted. Buying used comes with pitfalls, and gamers simply haven't been subjected to such things before. Change is not a bad thing, it's part of growth, which again, the industry is doing.
I have to hand it to you though, I did not expect those ideas to be thrown in. You want to get rid of the "Online Pass" which is a one-time fee for people who want to go online for $10 for a used game, or free when bought new, and replace it with a subscription based system for everyone? While also making the single player mode cheaper as well. While I'd agree as a whole with certain games (Modern Warfare 2, i.e. what's singleplayer?), others would not fare so well. For example Uncharted 2, or Bioshock 2. The latter though, would've been a better purchase if you just left multiplayer out completely in my opinion.
I'm not even going to touch your third "Idea" with a ten foot pole. Dig your own grave with that one.
Oh, I don't favor serializing all games. Just saying that's one option I'm sure publishers have looked at in the past. I personally like the final idea. Let publishers get into the used game business themselves. Let them compete with retailers for trade ins with vouchers/coupons that can be used for purchase of their new products at retail, or discounts from them via their own online stores. If they want to make money off used games then they'll have to start dealing in used games, it's pretty simple.
The subscription thing is just an option, it isn't my preferred one, but if publishers are saying that maintaining online services is costing them money then that's the best way I can think of to alleviate it. Sell the games for $40 and charge $2-$5 a year or something for online play. But, that will never happen, they'll want to charge full price for the games and then add the yearly fee on top of that, and that's just not the route to go.
Like I said, I say that if publishers are so set on making money on used games, let them get in the business and compete. They shouldn't just cry about it, they should do something about it.
The subscription thing is just an option, it isn't my preferred one, but if publishers are saying that maintaining online services is costing them money then that's the best way I can think of to alleviate it. Sell the games for $40 and charge $2-$5 a year or something for online play. But, that will never happen, they'll want to charge full price for the games and then add the yearly fee on top of that, and that's just not the route to go.
Like I said, I say that if publishers are so set on making money on used games, let them get in the business and compete. They shouldn't just cry about it, they should do something about it.
When you have companies like Activision putting out a game that has a laughable single player at best, and then wanting to charge MORE than the standard price, you aren't going to see the games being sold for less and then a subscription fee to balance out the discount unfortunately. They've already been on record that they're upset that they don't get any money from the guys playing on Xbox Live, as they believe they are one of the main driving forces behind people buying Live.
I believe I've made my points clear though, if a developer will stay in business and it'll be more viable to keep the servers for the games we all play up longer, I'm completely find with someone who buys a game used to have to pay an extra $10 (Knowingly though, factor that into your used price) to get the full experience.
The reason I found the sports game reference amusing is that sports games in general do not have their servers up for many years after their cover year. Look at a game like Monster Hunter on PS2, that stayed up (Though mostly dead) up until 2008'ish? Games have changed a lot since the 1980's, and costs have only increased across the board.
I believe I've made my points clear though, if a developer will stay in business and it'll be more viable to keep the servers for the games we all play up longer, I'm completely find with someone who buys a game used to have to pay an extra $10 (Knowingly though, factor that into your used price) to get the full experience.
The reason I found the sports game reference amusing is that sports games in general do not have their servers up for many years after their cover year. Look at a game like Monster Hunter on PS2, that stayed up (Though mostly dead) up until 2008'ish? Games have changed a lot since the 1980's, and costs have only increased across the board.
I find the whole used games thing pretty hilarious. How many times do you need to get paid for something EA? Heres the thing gamers, this stuff will only get worse in the future. The industry is trying to find a blueprint for the way things will be run. Things like this are tests. They are pushing us to see how far we will let them push us. We have the power to kill this shit now before things really get stupid but I fear we are already failing. We are a culture of "I have to see or do that", and until we can turn our backs on these things we love, we are doomed to become slaves to these companies. I think gaming is outrageously expensive without all the add ons like dlc or online. How do they expect us to keep forking over all this money? There's no way it can all sustain itself for long. I know this all sounds over dramatic and apocalyptic and I apologize. I love to game and I feel we are being abused by the companies we support. I may have to step away from gaming on principal alone..or just go back to one console.
For people who don't like this. Just get a new copy. I really don't understand why people buy the used copy for just $5 less. Pretty stupid for me.
@BalloonFighter
I enjoy you're stance that everything is a slippery slope, which I'll yield, things can escalate, but they're escalating right now because there is an issue. If you see it or not is whether you only are looking at the end result or actually paying attention to the day to day for a lot of companies.
The part that I do enjoy the best though is how you seem so upset that gaming is "outrageously expensive without all the add ons like dlc or online. How do they expect use to keep forking over all this money? There's no way it can sustain itself for long."
Gaming is a luxury, like buying the big screen tv's and other extravagances. These things cost money to do in any frequency, but for someone who isn't buying every AAA title on the market, it is expensive, but not prohibitive.
Though, saving the best for last I must admit, is your comment: "I may have to step away from gaming on principal alone..or just go back to one console."
If you're buying multiple consoles, and buying games for each, you don't really have a foot to stand on with claiming gaming is "too expensive" as you're just making it more expensive for yourself. Now I'm not saying that the hobby isn't expensive, but if I went out and bought every book I could and made my own library, I wouldn't go out and say reading is too expensive.
A time old expression, don't live beyond your means.
I enjoy you're stance that everything is a slippery slope, which I'll yield, things can escalate, but they're escalating right now because there is an issue. If you see it or not is whether you only are looking at the end result or actually paying attention to the day to day for a lot of companies.
The part that I do enjoy the best though is how you seem so upset that gaming is "outrageously expensive without all the add ons like dlc or online. How do they expect use to keep forking over all this money? There's no way it can sustain itself for long."
Gaming is a luxury, like buying the big screen tv's and other extravagances. These things cost money to do in any frequency, but for someone who isn't buying every AAA title on the market, it is expensive, but not prohibitive.
Though, saving the best for last I must admit, is your comment: "I may have to step away from gaming on principal alone..or just go back to one console."
If you're buying multiple consoles, and buying games for each, you don't really have a foot to stand on with claiming gaming is "too expensive" as you're just making it more expensive for yourself. Now I'm not saying that the hobby isn't expensive, but if I went out and bought every book I could and made my own library, I wouldn't go out and say reading is too expensive.
A time old expression, don't live beyond your means.
Hey EA, how about you take your idea and make it an optional purchase for new games, too? You knock $10 off the price of a new game, I guarantee that'll get you more sales.
Quick question, will fifa 11 come with this b.s. and if it does does the code work for 1 ps3 or 1 psn account? Why cant I explain myself properly? What I mean is if it will work for my psn account only or will it work with all the psn accounts on my ps3 so that my brother can also play. Or will I have to buy an extra code so that he can play too.
D-rabbit.
I know it's a luxury. I know we don't have to do anything. I'm a Nintendo boy at heart and if you look at the big picture, Nintendo is a pure gaming company that isnt butt fucking their customers. That said, they don't offer all the things the other two do. That's why I am a multiconsole gamer. Now if you have been paying attention to the gaming landscape for the last two years or so, you might notice a trend of gaming companies going out of business. Why do you think that is? I think there are to many games out there and to many additional charges for the average consumer to keep up. This could spell doom to the industry or a "crash". I don't want to see that happen but I think the wheels are already in motion.The industry has become to big and greedy to sustain itself much longer. I would expect more than graphical upgrades for the next generation. There is going to be a mass extinction.
I know it's a luxury. I know we don't have to do anything. I'm a Nintendo boy at heart and if you look at the big picture, Nintendo is a pure gaming company that isnt butt fucking their customers. That said, they don't offer all the things the other two do. That's why I am a multiconsole gamer. Now if you have been paying attention to the gaming landscape for the last two years or so, you might notice a trend of gaming companies going out of business. Why do you think that is? I think there are to many games out there and to many additional charges for the average consumer to keep up. This could spell doom to the industry or a "crash". I don't want to see that happen but I think the wheels are already in motion.The industry has become to big and greedy to sustain itself much longer. I would expect more than graphical upgrades for the next generation. There is going to be a mass extinction.
follow
